Weeger v. Mueller

Appellate Court of Illinois

Weeger v. Mueller

102 Ill. App. 258, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 501

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided May 23, 1902·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

The instruments offered in evidence, unless payable to bearer or to some person therein named, are not promissory notes. Walters v. Short, 5 Gil. 252-259; Mayo v. Chenoweth, Breese, 200; Smith v. Bridges, Breese, 18; Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169.

If the instruments can be construed as promises to pay the International Loan and Investment Union, see Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169; neither of them was indorsed by it, and hence no recovery could be had thereon by appellant.

The statute does not permit an amendment substituting a new party for the one in whose name a suit is brought.

The court properly refused to allow such “amendment” to be made.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

The instruments offered in evidence, unless payable to bearer or to some person therein named, are not promissory notes. Walters v. Short, 5 Gil. 252-259; Mayo v. Chenoweth, Breese, 200; Smith v. Bridges, Breese, 18; Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169.

If the instruments can be construed as promises to pay the International Loan and Investment Union, see Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169; neither of them was indorsed by it, and hence no recovery could be had thereon by appellant.

The statute does not permit an amendment substituting a new party for the one in whose name a suit is brought.

The court properly refused to allow such “amendment” to be made.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Weeger v. Mueller, 102 Ill. App. 258, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 501 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

102 Ill. App. 258 (Weeger v. Mueller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related